affiliator

Well if they are blackwashing the image results, they would be blackwashing the regular results too. I am not 100% convinced but I think you're best argument is that a search for "european people" gives the results you would expect. If they were blackwashing results, you would expect to see the same phenomenon there.

What do you make of the results for the search term "American inventors" which returns largely black inventors.

http://i.imgur.com/uTF3FTN.jpg

so you are think websites containing the keywords 'portraits', 'Europeans', and 'people' happen to predominantly be talking about portraits of non-European people by Europeans?

There is a difference in the results for "portraits of European" and "portraits of Europeans".

"portraits of Europeans" contains a large number of non-European faces.

If I recall correctly, google+ started asking for ID scans.

This post on reddit usually gets linked to when this question comes up over there: http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/8zjv7/instructions_o...

any way to sign up without facebook? I don't have an account.

Couple it with a tablet, load up wikipedia and you're ready to beam aboard any passing Vogon spaceship.

There are two parts to this issue, the most minor of which being that depictions of mohammed are forbidden. Indeed depictions of any prophet are frowned apon by the majority of muslims. Disney's 'The Prince of Egypt' was banned in many predominantly muslim countries for example. The reasoning behind this is that the worshiping of stone idols was the religion of the day in Mecca before Mohammed started evangelizing. It was the desire for Islam to be far removed from these practices. Yet for any rules that are in place for muslims, non-muslims are not required to adhere to them, hence no-one at Disney was threatened or murdered.

There is some cross-over of course, where a non-muslim cannot for example walk around half-dressed in a muslim country but making depictions of mohammed in a Western publication is certainly not one of them. I cringe when I hear people say something like 'Mohammed's image might be sacred to muslims, but not us'. Muslims are, you could argue, some what responsible though as mohammed has been elevated to something far above a human being in some of their minds, ironic when his one message was that God alone is worthy of worship.

The real issue and what is being continuously glossed over when this brouhaha boils over is that some muslims take deadly issue with mohammed or Islam being mocked. There are a few accounts of poets in mohammed's lifetime who slandered either him or Islam and were subsequently murdered. Most muslims doubt these accounts are factual, believing perhaps they were made up to suit someone's agenda after mohammed died. after all Mohammed was constantly berated by a multitude of detractors while he was alive and he didn't call for their deaths, but rather peace treaties.

Some muslims though - the dangerous ones - see them as valid and regard them as instructions as to how to conduct themselves when a similar situation arises. If you managed to watch the video clip revolutionmuslim created, you will hear that the audio which plays over the montage is of an imam discussing some of these stories. So this is why the Danish cartoonists are being threatened, not because they made an image of mohammed but because they slandered him. This is why Theo Van Gogh was murdered and this is why the South Park creators are being threatened. Behind the mask of these veiled threats of course lies a sub-section of muslims who wish to rouse their brethren to engage in a full-on assault of the west. The vast majority of muslims will ignore them but those already holding a vendetta might give them ear.

Ireland a mixed bag? The British legitimately did some good things? You make it sound like the enslavement, genocide and the systematic extermination of their culture and national language was a charity. You must mean the railroads they very generously set down in order to hasten the exportation of their crops (which the Irish slaved to harvest) in order to feed the rest of their empire while the Irish themselves starved, this even while the only crop they could afford to consume witnessed a blight, killing 2 million of them and forcing another 2 million to emigrate. They could though leave their religion and change their name as a token to bear this witness for a single bowl of soup if they wished so perhaps this is also the mixed bag you speak of.

I must tell you too, the infighting was and is not religiously motivated. This is a common mistake. The fight is and was between nationalists (those who desire an Irish republic) and loyalists (those British settlers and their offspring who desire British rule). Their religious affiliations are an aside.

It's the author's way of explaining the Patriot act, that the FBI are allowed to monitor communications without seeking the permission of a court.

To be fair, the author perhaps does allude indirectly to the attacks by trying to point out a perceived hypocrisy of Google being willing to operate under the patriot act:

To combat terrorism after the "9/11" terrorist attack, the U.S. has permitted police to search civilian emails and even monitor their communications without permission

A related post in the side-links does opine on the attacks directly though: Google probes inside job in hackings.

It's interesting to read their spin.

Recomment(?) from a reddit thread on the same story from someone who claims to work in cancer research:

The chances that this antibody will work in humans is EXTREMELY small.

The model that would have to be used here is injecting human prostate cancer cells into nude mice (this is a strain that is totally lacking in its own immune system so foreign cancer cells can actually survive and not be killed within minutes), allowing the tumor to grow, and then injecting the antibody or even ust the antibody fragment int the tail vein. You then palpate the tumor over the next few weeks. You'd also want to sample the tumor and maybe do some TUNEL to check for actual rates of apoptosis.

Chances are very slim that an antibody that fights this specific strain of lab grown cancer (lab grown cancers have generally been grown for so long that they are heavily mutated to say the least) will be effective in humans. Humans have many, many, many different strains of prostate cancer and unless these researchers have accidentally stumbled upon the holy grail of surface markers that somehow indicate internal genetic expression...I am skeptical.

Additionally, you've linked to an article that is so vacuous that it doesn't even feel the need to cite the actual results which it is based upon. VPNed through my department account and I can't even find the article.

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ajcaq/an_antibody_h...

No need to apologize even if you did do it yourself. I checked your previous submissions and it is obvious you are not spamming HN. There is no shame in linking to a interesting product using an affiliate program. You are technically advertising for them after all and deserve a payment.

I do wonder how much you earned the Stumbleupon user though. A quick google search on the affiliate suffix shows he links to a few other DX products on SU and elsewhere. Today I'm sure he saw a boost in profits.

While I'm not begrudging, it should be noted that DX links ending with ~r. and a number are affiliated to a particular user's account.